Reading Responses - Assignment Example

Reading Response 3: Rhetorical Analysis of Hillary Clinton One strongly agrees with Malori Crossley’s arguments that Karlyn Kohl Campbell’s contentions regarding Hilary Clinton’s rhetorical speaking style was utterly ridiculous, chauvinistic and grossly unfair. For one, having heard some of Clinton’s public speeches enables me to conclude that her rhetorical speaking was not, in any way, typically masculine. Clinton exudes the air of confidence and competence expected of public officials, particularly as one of the United States Secretary of State and Former Senator.

As a woman who unjustly criticizes another woman for supposedly exhibiting a speaking style that was terms not fitting for a typical woman was way below the line. Further, her contentions that Clinton failed to gauge and evaluate the audience by not fitting the social norms were not appropriately substantiated. The audience would most predominantly be composed of both the male and female gender and the effectiveness of the speaker depends not solely on fitting the social norm, but in addressing the purpose of the speech that caters to the needs of the audience.

The arguments that finally shift the blame to the American public for Clinton’s supposed failure as a rhetor was equally ludicrous. An effective rhetorical analysis should have used pathetic, logical and ethical appeals that are fair, objective and credible. Does it mean that because Clinton was manifesting her experience as a lawyer, expert, and advocate, she is already exhibiting a masculine speaking style? Do these roles and responsibilities only fit the male gender and render them befitting for females?